State Of C.G. And Ors vs President,C.G.Jalashy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 168 Chatt

                                            -1-


                                                                                 NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   WPL No. 4837 of 2010

     1.      State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Water              Resources
             Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2.      The Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi Jal Pariyojna Mandal, Rudri,
             District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

     3.      The Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Jal Pariyojna Mandal,Division No.3,
             Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

     4.      The Sub-Divisional Officer, Peiry Mahanadi Link Pariyojna, Sub
             Division, Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
                                                              ---- Petitioners
                                          Versus
     1.      The President, Chhattisgarh Jalashay Pariyojna, Avam Lok Nirman
             Shramik Sangh, Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
     2.      The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioners/State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

07/06/2021

1. None appears for the respondents-Union. Initially the Union was

served, but there was no representation. Subsequently, on 17.09.2015

this Court had ordered for service to be made upon the three workers

involved in the dispute before the Labour Court.

2. The State Government has subsequently by way of an affidavit brought

on record the Dasti service made upon Ghururam Dewangan and

Ishwari Prasad Verma. Inspite of Dasti Service, there is no

representation on their behalf. As regard the third worker Uttam Kumar

Sahu, the learned Deputy Advocate General submits that he has

instructions to state that the said worker has since expired on

26.04.2007 and the State has also brought the death certificate on

record. Thus, the whole dispute now revolves around the two workers

Ghururam Dewangan and Ishwari Prasad Verma.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that pending the writ petition

before this Court, there is a development that has transpired wherein

keeping in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of "State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others"

2006(4) SCC 1 dealing with the subject of regularization the State

Government as a policy decision has issued a circular dated

05.03.2008 ordering for regularization of all those workers engaged

prior to 31.12.1997. Based upon the said circular, both these workers

namely Ghururam Dewangan as also Ishwari Prasad Verma both were

regularized in service and moreover both these workers have also

given a joint affidavit of relinquishing all their claims, if any, for the

period prior to the date of regularization dated 13.08.2008, whereby

both these workers have been ordered to be regularized.

4. According to the learned State counsel, given the said factual matrix of

the case, the respondents do not seem to be interested in pursuing with

the present writ petition any further. This Court accepting the contention

put forth by the State counsel and also considering of order of

regularization in favour of the workers Ghururam Dewangan and

Ishwari Prasad Verma dated 13.08.2008 is of the opinion that the

workers do not further seem to contest the matter in the light of the

whatever benefit that they have got vide the order of regularization

dated 13.08.2008 and the affidavit thereafter furnished by them

relinquishing all there claim, if any, for the previous period. Accordingly,

the present writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of holding that

in the light of the regularization dated 13.08.2008 passed by the

petitioners-State in favour of the two workers Ghururam Dewangan and

Ishwari Prasad Verma the impugned award under challenge in the

present writ petition shall not be acted upon any further nor shall the

same be placed for its implementation at a later stage by any of the

beneficiaries.

5. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved